get_user_verdicts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It plainly states this is a read operation ('读取') and adds a meaningful policy: denied explanations must not be reused. This goes beyond the tool name and tells the agent a consequence of the returned verdicts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, no filler. The core read action comes first, and the important reuse constraint is appended second. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the target resource, and the key policy. It lacks only explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the tool is otherwise callable without further clarification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does so by binding 'topic' to the subject of the verdicts ('用户对该主题此前的确认/否认判定'), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Topic' label.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb ('读取' / read) and a specific resource: the user's prior confirm/deny verdicts for the topic. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_sources or get_topic_timeline, which address different information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second clause, '被否认的解释不得复用', implies the tool should be consulted before reusing an explanation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.